Scriptures, deserves to be given entire. Biblia sacra, aut eorum partes, etiam a catholico viro vulgariter quocūque sermone redditæ, sine nova et speciali sedis apostolicæ licentia nusquam permittuntur : vulgares verd paraphrases omnino interdicuntur.

Page 105, at line 6 of the Note,

Add, after accuracy"Watson's informant seems to have been one Benson, of whom, and his cruel treatment, mention is made, pp. 84, 85.

Page 112, at 4th line from the bottom,

After Ruleread -denies that any power is given by this new impression of it to the bishops, &c., to grant (what had been withdrawn) licenses, &c.

At the end of the Note, read and add –

Gregory XIII. and probably as early as Pius IV. De Secret. et Cong. Ind. I. i. c. vii. Catalani has given the most important part of the diploma of Gregory. It is dated, Id. Sept. 1572, his first year. The pope there authorised five presbyter-cardinals, of whom Felice Peretti, his successor, Sixtus V. was the fourth, to arrange a future Index, et quæ videbuntur, addere, mutare, supplere, et emendare. Clement's Index has indeed an acknowledgment, which may satisfy this language ; but the strange omission of this constitution in the professed collections of Cherubini and Coquelines, though appearing in the Ecloge Bullarum, fc. 8vo. Lugd. 1582; Constitt. SS. PP. Flabiobrigæ, 1583; Matthæi Summa Constitt. Lugd. 1588 ; and a notice of it in Castellanus's Compendium Constitt.,—affords cause to suspect, that it was, like many others, purposely suppressed, lest it should appear to recognise, or really call to mind, the suppressed

Index of Sixtus V. I am happy to acknowledge my obligation to my valued friend, Mr. Gibbings, late of Trinity College, Dublin, and whom I have already named with deserved approbation, the claims on which keep increasing, for the whole information of the latter part of this Note. Catalani is entitled to the unqualified praise of not having stifled the pontifical documents. The omissions in the Bullaria would form an interesting subject of inquiry. The Constitution is likewise extant, as I have since found, in the Collectio Constitt. &c. fol. Romæ, 1579.

Page 114, line 10,

After others," insert, “is to be expunged.

Line 13, Note at "&c.”In libris autem Catholicorum veterum nihil mutarefas sit : nisi ubi, aut fraude hæreticorum aut Typographi incuria manifestus error irrepserit. “Here,' says Crashaw, in his valuable and rare volume, Falsificationum Romanar. &c. Lond. 1606, sign. C,_here be good words and a fair profession ; but mark withal the many evasions and holes which they leave herein, of purpose to creep out at their pleasure. For first, it is limited (not to all the ancient fathers), but to ancient Catholics. And seeing they make it in their own power to judge, who be Catholic writers, who not, doth it not follow, that they hold it likewise in their power to appoint, who shall be purged, who not? Again, they make a proviso, that when there is an error, either by corruption of heretics or fault of printers, then they may alter it at their pleasure. But that is to open them a gap to all liberty, for when they have done what they list, and corrupted the fathers at their pleasure, then they have a present answer ready, We did but restore it, being afore corrupted by heretics or the printers.'

Page 117, line 12, Atresponsibility" add the NotePapebrochius, in a passage quoted by Clement, and for which I am indebted to Mr. Gibbings in his preface to his reprint, p. liv. has given the plain reason in the text for the suppression of Brasichellen's Index: Suspendendi Indicis illius expurgatorii justas causas alias non oportet suspicere, quam quod voluerit Congregatio, ut omnibus probationibus cancellatis, tantum nudæ conclusiones in posterum vulgarentur. This is the way in which brute tyranny shelters itself from just responsibility.

Page 119, line 1,
Before In," insert, "Under the article."

Page 128. At the end of the Note in the FIRST SUPPLEMENT, p. 22,


The valuable reprint already noticed is plainly, and as I know by inspection afforded by the estimable editor, a genuine copy. My own copy varies considerably in the letterpress as to the form, and particularly in giving the contracted words at length, and is, there can be no doubt, a reprint prior to that of Mr. Gibbings, and noticed onward.

Alter the last line of the text thus

To "

Valuable work already referred to of ZOBELIUS, Notitia Indicis, &c. and

Page 130, line 2,

a Dominicanaffix the NoteThis fact is decisively ascertained by the testimony of ANTONIO, to whom Zobelius appeals, in his Bibl. Hisp. Nova, tom. ii. p. 308 (Ed. ult.), particularly as respects the critique upon the Bibliotheca Patrum Bignæana, see p. 40.

Page 131, line 1,
After edition," insert,“ as we have seen.”

Line 3,

After was,insert – Opposed by authority, and when nevertheless printed was forbidden to be sold, and that, &c.

Line 8,

For priest,read minister.

Line 11,

After edition,” insert,"after that of Bergomi."

Line 16, After und,insert," first."

Page 132, line 2, After other," insert in the text, beginning a fresh

paragraphThe second modern reprint of the Bergomi edition, which is yet an accurate facsimile, was not intended as an imposition. In 1837, Mr. Gibbings obliged the English literary public with another edition of this single and remarkable Roman expurgatory. The preface of the acute and laborious editor has supplied me with some important additions and rectifications. I have only to add my best thanks for the terms which he has used respecting this work, and my gratification to find, that more material oversights have not been detected by so competent a critic. I beg, however, to observe, that in uniting me in the condemnation passed upon Zobelius, p. lvi., for putting the Index of Brasichellen in a future Index, he has not given me sufficient credit for my hesitation on the subject. I reported the assertion of Zobelius, but was always doubtful whether it could be sub

a con

stantiated to the full effect. Certainly no Index is producible in which the name or work of Brasichellen expressly appears. This, indeed, it would be great impolicy not to avoid. Still, however, the general decree, problematically adduced, of March 16, 1621, would operate as demnation of all reprints out of Rome, and without authority; and the first edition in Rome would be taken good care of by the proper authorities. The suppression, which was the main thing, would be sufficiently secured ; or, at least, was thought to be so. The suppression, resolutely provided for as it was, was equivalent to the most formal and absolute condemnation. That is enough.

Page 136, last line, to “ Perditorum,” add I had hazarded this emendation long before I was aware that an English translation of the license existed in the first edition of Foxe's Acts and Monuments, and before I had that rare volume.. I find there, at p. 492, my conjecture established, the passage being translated, the malice of these wicked persons.' In the new edition the license occurs vol. iv.


697. The contracted manner in which ancient documents of this sort are generally written, may account for the mistake of Bishop Burnet's transcriber.

Page 147, line 19, after " division," insert I may just add, that about the year 1839 I came into possession of the SAXONIÆ ALBERTI KRANZII, Franc. 1580. I was induced to obtain it, because it was described as bearing proof of actual expurgation to a considerable extent. And so I found; for it is the

very gated in the Index before us. P. 85, and many more, are scored throughout, line after line, with laborious accuracy.

edition expur

Page 168, add to the NoteI acquiesce in the suggestion of Mr. Gibbings, Pref. p. xii,

« ElőzőTovább »